ETA • SHIELD • ALARA • NEUTRON • E

L

E

C

T

RON • TED • INTERNAL • CED • GAMMA • BETA • SHIELD • ALARA • NEUTRON • ELECTRON • TED • INTERNAL • CED • GAMMA • BETA • SHIELD • ALARA 

http://www.hss.doe.gov/SESA/Analysis/rems/

November 2011

DOE 2010

OCCUPATIONAL

RADIATION

EXPOSURE
This document is available on the

Department of Energy

REMS Program Web Site at:

http://www.hss.doe.gov/SESA/Analysis/rems/
Foreword iii

Forew Foreword ord

A core value of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is to ensure the health and safety of DOE 

employees, contractors, and subcontractors. The Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) provides 

the corporate-level leadership and strategic vision necessary to better coordinate and integrate health, 

safety, environment, security, enforcement, and independent oversight programs. In support of this 

mission, HSS’s Office of Analysis provides for the collection, analysis, and dissemination of data and 

performance indicators, such as occupational radiation exposure information. This information supports 

corporate decisionmaking and synthesizes operational information to support continuous environment, 

safety, and health improvement across the DOE complex.

A key safety focus for DOE is to maintain worker radiation exposures below administrative control levels 

(ACL) and DOE limits and to further reduce these exposures to levels that are “as low as reasonably 

achievable (ALARA).” The annual DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report provides an 

evaluation of DOE-wide performance regarding compliance with Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations

(C.F.R.) Part 835 Occupational Radiation Protection dose limits and ALARA process requirements and 

an overview of the status of radiation exposures of the DOE workforce. In addition, this report serves as 

a risk management tool for managing radiological safety programs and provides useful information to 

DOE organizations, epidemiologists, researchers, and national and international agencies involved in 

developing policies to protect individuals from harmful effects of radiation.

The Radiation Exposure Monitoring System (REMS) program remains a key component of HSS 

oversight and analysis to inform management and stakeholders of the continued vigilance and success of 

the DOE sites in minimizing radiation exposure to workers. One of the objectives of this report is to 

provide useful, accurate, and complete information to the target audience. As part of a continuing 

improvement process, we would appreciate your response to the user survey included at the end of this 

report.

_____________________________________________

Glenn S. Podonsky

Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer

Office of Health, Safety and Security

Foreword
iv DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents v

Contents

FOREWORD...................................................................................................................................................iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................................................ix

SECTION 1—INTRODUCTION

 1.1 Report Organization .............................................................................................................................1-1

 1.2 Report Availability ................................................................................................................................1-2

SECTION 2—STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS

 2.1 Radiation Protection Requirements.....................................................................................................2-1

 2.2 Radiation Dose Limits............................................................................................................................2-1

 2.3 Reporting Requirements........................................................................................................................2-1

 2.4 Amendment to 10 C.F.R. 835.................................................................................................................2-3

SECTION 3—OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION DOSE AT DOE

 3.1 Analysis of the Data................................................................................................................................3-1

 3.2 Analysis of Aggregate Data....................................................................................................................3-1

 3.2.1 Number of Records for Monitored Individuals ........................................................................3-1

 3.2.2 Number of Records for Individuals with Measurable Dose. ...................................................3-1

 3.2.3 Collective Dose ............................................................................................................................3-2

 3.2.4 Average Measurable Dose ..........................................................................................................3-3

 3.2.5 Dose Distribution .........................................................................................................................3-4

 3.3 Analysis of Individual Dose Data..........................................................................................................3-5

 3.3.1 Doses in Excess of DOE Limit.....................................................................................................3-5

 3.3.2 Doses in Excess of Administrative Control Level .....................................................................3-6

 3.3.3 Internal Depositions of Radioactive Material ...........................................................................3-6

 3.3.4 Bioassay and Intake Summary Information..............................................................................3-7

 3.4 Analysis of Site Data...............................................................................................................................3-8

 3.4.1 Collective TED by Site and Other Facilities ..............................................................................3-8

 3.4.2 Changes by Site from 2009 to 2010 ............................................................................................3-8

 3.4.3 Activities Significantly Contributing to Collective Dose in 2010.............................................3-8

 3.4.3.1 Further Detail on Activities Significantly Contributing to Collective 

 Dose in 2010 ....................................................................................................................3-14

 3.4.4. Summary by Program Office ...................................................................................................3-16

 3.5 Transient Individuals............................................................................................................................3-18

 3.6 Historical Data ......................................................................................................................................3-18

 3.6.1 Prior Years...................................................................................................................................3-18

 3.6.2 Historical Data Collection.........................................................................................................3-20

 3.7 DOE Occupational Dose in Relation to Other Activities..................................................................3-20

 3.7.1 Activities Regulated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......................................3-20

SECTION 4—ALARA ACTIVITIES AT DOE

4.1 Submitting ALARA Project Descriptions for Future Annual Reports ..............................................4-1

 4.2 Operating Experience Program...........................................................................................................4-1

SECTION 5—CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................................. 5-1

GLOSSARY............................................................................................................................................................G-1

REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................................R-1

USER SURVEY......................................................................................................................................................U-1

Table of Contents

Table of Contents
vi DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit ES-1: Collective TED (person-rem), 2006–2010............................................................................................................. ix

Exhibit ES-2: Average Measurable TED (rem), 2006–2010........................................................................................................ ix

Exhibit 2-1: Laws and Requirements Pertaining to This Report............................................................................................2-1

Exhibit 2-2: DOE Dose Limits from 10 C.F.R. 835 ....................................................................................................................2-2

Exhibit 3-1a: Monitoring of the DOE Workforce, 2006–2010 ...................................................................................................3-1

Exhibit 3-1b: Monitoring of the DOE Workforce, 2006–2010 ...................................................................................................3-2

Exhibit 3-2: Components of TED, 2006–2010...........................................................................................................................3-3

Exhibit 3-3: Average Measurable TED, 2006–2010..................................................................................................................3-3

Exhibit 3-4: Distribution of TED by Dose Range, 2006–2010 .................................................................................................3-4

Exhibit 3-5: Percentage of Collective TED Above Dose Values During 2006–2010.............................................................3-5

Exhibit 3-6: Number of Individuals Exceeding 2 rems ACL and the 5 rems Annual

 Limit, 2006–2010.....................................................................................................................................................3-5

Exhibit 3-7: Doses in Excess of DOE Limit, 2006–2010...........................................................................................................3-6

Exhibit 3-8: Number of Internal Depositions, Collective CED, and Average

 Measurable CED, 2006–2010.................................................................................................................................3-6

Exhibit 3-9: Internal Dose Distribution from Intakes, 2006–2010 ..........................................................................................3-7

Exhibit 3-10: Bioassay and Air Sampling Measurements, 2008–2010 .....................................................................................3-7

Exhibit 3-11: Collective CED by Radionuclide, 2010................................................................................................................3-8

Exhibit 3-12: Collective TED by DOE Site for 2008–2010..........................................................................................................3-9

Exhibit 3-13: Collective TED and Number of Individuals with Measurable 

 TED by DOE Site, 2008–2010...............................................................................................................................3-10

Exhibit 3-14: Site Dose Data, 2010 ............................................................................................................................................3-11

Exhibit 3-15: Activities Significantly Contributing to Collective TED in 2010 ......................................................................3-12

Exhibit 3-16: Program Office Dose Data, 2010 ........................................................................................................................3-17

Exhibit 3-17: Dose Distribution of Transient Workers, 2006–2010 ........................................................................................3-18

Exhibit 3-18: Collective Dose and Average Measurable Dose, 1974–2010...........................................................................3-19

Exhibit 3-19: Number of Workers with Measurable Dose and Average 

 Measurable Dose, 1974–2010..............................................................................................................................3-19

Exhibit 3-20: Comparison of Occupational Exposure for DOE and NRC, 2006–2010.........................................................3-21

Exhibit 5-1: 2010 Radiation Exposure Summary.....................................................................................................................5-1
Table of Contents vii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACL Administrative Control Level

AEC Atomic Energy Commission

ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

BJC Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC

CEqD Committed Equivalent Dose

CED Committed Effective Dose

D&D Decontamination and Decommissioning

ED Effective Dose

EqD Equivalent Dose

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EM Office of Environmental Management

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ETTP East Tennessee Technology Park

HSS Office of Health, Safety and Security

ICP Idaho Cleanup Project

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection

INL Idaho National Laboratory

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory

LANSCE Los Alamos Neutron Science Center

LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

mSv Millisievert

NE Office of Nuclear Energy

NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration

NNSS Nevada National Security Site

NRC U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory

PFP Plutonium Finishing Plant

RCS Radiological Control Standard

REMS Radiation Exposure Monitoring System

SLAC SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory

SNL Sandia National Laboratories

SRNS Savannah River Nuclear Solutions

SRR Savannah River Remediation

SRS Savannah River Site

Sv Sieverts

TED Total Effective Dose

TRU Transuranic

UNSCEAR United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

Y-12 Y-12 National Security Complex
viii DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

This page intentionally left blank.
Executive Summary ix

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Analysis within the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) 

publishes the annual DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure Report to provide an overview of the status of 

radiation protection practices at DOE.* The DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report provides 

an evaluation of DOE-wide performance regarding compliance with DOE Part 835 dose limits and as low 

as reasonably achievable (ALARA) process requirements. In addition, the report provides data to DOE 

organizations responsible for developing policies for protection of individuals from the effects of radiation. 

The report provides a summary and an analysis of occupational radiation exposure information from the 

monitoring of individuals involved in DOE activities. The occupational radiation exposure information is 

analyzed in terms of aggregate data, dose to individuals, and dose by site over the past 5 years.

It should be noted that while Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) 835 was revised as of June 2007, 

full implementation was not required until July 2010. All sites have now transitioned and therefore this report 

reflects the changes in dose terminology required by the revision to 10 C.F.R. 835.

One of the report’s features includes the collective total effective dose (TED) - an indicator of the overall 

amount of radiation dose received during the conduct of operations at DOE. Over the past 10-year period, 

99.99% of the individuals receiving measurable dose have received doses below the 2 rems (20 millisievert 

[mSv]) TED administrative control level (ACL), which is well below the DOE regulatory limit of 5 rems 

(50 mSv) TED. 

However, the DOE collective TED increased by 30% from 2009 to 2010, as shown in Exhibit ES-1. This is the 

second consecutive year that the collective TED has increased. The collective TED increased at all five of the 

sites with the largest collective TED in 2010. For these five sites, the increase in collective TED in 2010 was 

attributed to: waste processing, including higher dose waste drums and decommissioning at Savannah River 

Site (SRS), isotope processing and cleanup and waste disposal at Oak Ridge, increased decontamination 

and decommissioning (D&D) at Idaho, and increased manufacturing and related weapons work, processing 

and shipping solid waste, and maintenance activities at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). These sites 

attributed much of the increase in collective dose to increases in funding for cleanup and environmental 

efforts under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009.

Summary

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

* DOE is defined to include the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) sites.

Exhibit ES-1:

Collective TED (person-rem), 2006–2010.

Exhibit ES-2:

Average Measurable TED (rem), 2006–2010.
x DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

Sites that contributed to the increase in the number of workers with measurable dose include SRS, Hanford Site, Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and Idaho National Laboratory (INL). Overall from 2009 to 2010, there was an 

11% increase in the number of workers with measurable dose. However, due to the increases in the DOE work force 

and monitored workers, the ratio of workers with measurable doses to monitored workers remained about the same 

(approximately 14%).

The TED is comprised of the effective dose (ED) from external sources, which includes neutron and photon radiation, 

and the internal committed effective dose (CED), which results from the intake of radioactive material into the body. 

The collective dose from photon exposure increased by 28%, while the neutron dose and internal dose components of 

the collective TED increased by 18% and 86%, respectively.

Another primary indicator of the level of radiation exposure covered in this report is the average measurable dose, 

which normalizes the collective dose over the population of workers who actually received a measurable dose. The 

average measurable TED increased by 18% from 2009 to 2010, as shown in Exhibit ES-2. The number of individuals who 

received a measurable dose also increased.

Additional analyses show that the dose distribution in 2010 was similar to the distribution in 2009. However, as a 

result of an incident involving plutonium, an individual at SRS received a TED of 31.589 rems and received a CEqD 

to the bone surface of 1,040 rems. These doses exceed the regulatory limit of 5 rems TED and the 50 rems committed 

equivalent dose (CEqD) to an organ or tissue. 

In 2010, only 14% of the monitored workers received a measurable dose and the average measurable dose was less 

than 2% of the DOE limit. From 2009 to 2010, the collective dose and the number of individuals with measurable 

dose increased by 30% and 11%, respectively. These increases in the dose and number of individuals were the result 

of increased activities involving radioactive materials, particularly at the DOE sites that comprise the majority of 

DOE collective dose. It should be noted that the individual dose in excess of the DOE limits at SRS was a significant 

contributor to the increase in collective dose in 2010.

Over the past 10 years, the collective dose and the size of the monitored workforce have remained at fairly stable levels. 

For the past 3 years, there has been an increase in collective dose and the number of individuals with measurable dose 

as activities have increased in decommissioning and waste processing at several of the larger DOE sites. 

To access this report and other information on occupational radiation exposure at DOE, visit the DOE HSS web site at:

http://www.hss.doe.gov/SESA/Analysis/rems/
Introduction 1-1

Introduction Section One 1

Introduction

Describes the content and organization of this report.

Discusses the radiation protection and dose reporting requirements.

Presents the 2010 occupational radiation dose data trended over the past 5 years.

Includes instructions to submit successful ALARA projects. 

Conclusions.

The appendices are now offered in color on the DOE Radiation Exposure web site. Please visit 

http://www.hss.doe.gov/SESA/Analysis/rems/ and select Annual Reports to review.

Section One

Section Two

Section Three

Section Four

Section Five

Appendices

Ms. Nirmala Rao, Office of Analysis (HS-24)

DOE REMS Project Manager

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20585-1290

E-mail: nimi.rao@hq.doe.gov

The DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

analyzes occupational radiation exposures at U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) facilities during 2010. 

This report includes occupational radiation exposure 

information for all DOE employees, contractors, and 

subcontractors, as well as members of the public in 

controlled areas who are monitored for exposure 

to radiation. The 101 DOE organizations submitting 

radiation exposure reports for 2010 have been grouped 

into 32 sites across the complex. This information has 

been analyzed and trended over time to provide a 

measure of DOE’s performance in protecting its workers 

from radiation.

1.1 Report Organization

This report is organized into the five sections listed 

below. Additional supporting technical information, 

tables of data, and additional items are available on the 

DOE web site for Information on Occupational Radiation 

Exposure. A User Survey form is included at the end 

of this report and users are encouraged to provide 

feedback to improve this report.

1.2 Report Availability

This report is available online and may be downloaded 

from:

Visit the DOE web site for more information on 

occupational radiation exposure, such as the 

following:

u Annual occupational radiation exposure 

reports in PDF files since 1974;

u Guidance on reporting radiation exposure 

information to the DOE Headquarters 

Radiation Exposure Monitoring System 

(REMS);

u Guidance on how to request a dose history for 

an individual;

u Statistical data since 1987 for analysis;

u Applicable DOE orders and manuals for the 

recordkeeping and reporting of occupational 

radiation exposure at DOE; and

u ALARA activities at DOE.

Requests for additional copies of this report, for 

access to the data files, or individual dose records 

used to compile this report and suggestions and 

comments should be directed to:

http://www.hss.doe.gov/SESA/Analysis/rems/
1-2 DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

This page intentionally left blank.
Standards and Requirements 2-1

Section Two 2

Standards and Requirements

One of DOE’s primary objectives is to provide a safe and 

healthy workplace for all employees and contractors. 

To meet this objective, the DOE Office of Health, Safety 

and Security (HSS) establishes comprehensive and 

integrated programs for the protection of workers from 

hazards in the workplace including ionizing radiation. 

The basic DOE standards for occupational radiation 

protection include radiation dose limits, which establish 

maximum permissible doses to workers. In addition 

to the requirement that radiation doses not exceed the 

limits, contractors and subcontractors are required to 

maintain exposures ALARA.

This section discusses the radiation protection 

standards and requirements in effect for 2010. For more 

information on past requirements, visit the DOE web site 

for DOE Directives, Regulations, and Standards.

2.1 Radiation Protection Requirements

DOE radiation protection standards in effect at the 

beginning of 2010 were based on Federal guidance for 

protection against occupational radiation exposure 

promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) in 1987 [1]. This guidance, initially 

implemented by DOE in 1989, is based on the 1977 

recommendations of the International Commission 

on Radiological Protection (ICRP) 26 [2] and the 1987 

recommendations of the National Council on Radiation 

Protection and Measurements (NCRP) 91 [3]. This 

guidance recommends that internal dose be added to 

the external whole-body dose to determine the 

total effective dose equivalent (TEDE). Prior to 

this guidance, the external dose and internal dose 

were each limited separately. It should be noted 

that 10 C.F.R. 835 was revised in June 2007, with 

full implementation required by July 2010. The 

revision adopted ICRP 60 [4] and 68 [5] dosimetric 

quantities and units. See section 2.4. The laws 

and requirements for occupational radiation 

protection pertaining to the information collected 

and presented in this report are summarized in 

Exhibit 2-1. 

2.2 Radiation Dose Limits

Radiation dose limits are codified in 10 C.F.R. 

835.202, 206, 207, and 208 [6] and are summarized 

in Exhibit 2-2.

2.3 Reporting Requirements

On August 19, 2003, DOE approved and issued the 

revised DOE O 231.1A [7]. DOE M 231.1-1A [8], 

which details the format and content of reporting 

radiation exposure records to DOE, was approved 

on March 19, 2004. The revisions affected the 

content and reporting of radiation exposure 

records, beginning with the 2005 monitoring year 

and ending with the monitoring year 2009. For the 

monitoring year 2010, the sites were required to 

Standards and Requirements

Exhibit 2-1:

Laws and Requirements Pertaining to This Report.

Title Date Description

10 C.F.R. 835, "Occupational 

Radiation Protection." [6]

Issued 12/14/93. 

Amended 11/4/98. 

Amended 6/8/07.

Establishes radiation protection standards, limits, and 

program requirements for protecting individuals from 

ionizing radiation that results from the conduct of DOE 

activities.

DOE Order 231.1A, 

"Environment, Safety and 

Health Reporting." [7]

Approved 8/19/03. Requires the annual reporting of occupational radiation 

exposure records to the DOE REMs repository.

DOE Manual 231.1-1A,

"Environment, Safety and 

Health Reporting Manual." [8]

Approved 3/19/04. Specifies the current format and content of the reports 

required by DOE Order 231.1A. 
2-2 DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

implement the changes required by the Amendment to 

10 C.F.R. 835.

As of June 27, 2011, DOE O 231.1A has been updated 

and reissued as DOE O 231.1B. DOE M 231.1-1A, has 

been cancelled and the reporting requirements from the 

manual have been moved to the online REMS Reporting 

Guide at http://www.hss.doe.gov/sesa/Analysis/rems/

index.htm.

2.4 Amendment to 10 C.F.R. 835

In August 2006, DOE published a proposed amendment 

to 10 C.F.R. 835 in the Federal Register, and in June 2007, 

the final amended rule was published. The amendment:

u Specified new dosimetric terminology and 

quantities based on ICRP 60/68 in place of ICRP 

26/30;

u Specified ICRP 60 tissue weighting factors in 

place of ICRP 26 weighting factors;

u Specified ICRP 60 radiation weighting factors in 

place of ICRP 26 quality factors;

u Amended other parts of the regulation that 

changed as a result of adopting ICRP 60 

dosimetry system;

u Used the ICRP 68 dose conversion factors 

to determine values for the derived air 

concentrations (DACs); and

u Adopted other changes intended to enhance 

radiation protection.

The rule became effective on July 9, 2007, and was 

required to be fully implemented by DOE sites by July 

9, 2010. Therefore, all sites began complying with the 

new requirements during 2010. The monitoring year 

2010 is the first year where all sites are required to report 

under the Amendment to 10 C.F.R. 835 and therefore all 

terminology in this annual report has been changed in 

accordance with the Amendment.

Exhibit 2-2:

DOE Dose Limits from 10 C.F.R. 835.

Personnel 

Category

Section of 

10 C.F.R. 

835 Type of Exposure Acronym

Annual 

Limit

General

employees

835.202 Total effective dose. TED 5 rems

The sum of the effective dose to the 

whole body for external exposures 

and the committed equivalent dose to 

the maximally exposed organ or tissue 

other than the skin or the lens of the 

eye. (Total Organ Dose)

ED+CEqD

(TOD)

50 rems

Equivalent Dose to the Lens of the Eye. EqD-Eye 15 rems

The sum of the equivalent dose 

to the skin or to any extremity for 

external exposures and the committed 

equivalent dose to the skin or to any 

extremity.

EqD-SkWB + CEqD-SK

and

EqD to the maximally 

exposed extremity + CEqD-SK

50 rems

Declared

pregnant

workers*

835.206 Total effective dose. TED 0.5 rem per

gestation

period

Minors 835.207 Total effective dose. TED 0.1 rem

Members of 

the public in a 

controlled area

835.208 Total effective dose. TED 0.1 rem

*Limit applies to the embryo/fetus.
Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-1

Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE Section Three 3

3.1 Analysis of the Data

Certain key indicators have been determined useful 

when evaluating occupational radiation exposures 

received at DOE facilities. The key indicators are 

analyzed to identify and correlate parameters having an 

impact on radiation dose at DOE.

Key indicators for the analysis of aggregate data are:

u number of records for monitored individuals;

u individuals with measurable dose;

u collective dose;

u average measurable dose; and

u dose distribution.

Analysis of individual dose data includes an examination 

of:

u doses exceeding the 5 rems (50 millisievert 

[mSv]) DOE regulatory limit; and

u doses exceeding the 2 rems (20 mSv) DOE 

administrative control level (ACL), as specified 

in DOE STD 1098-2008 Radiological Control.

Additional information is provided in this report 

concerning activities at sites contributing to the majority 

of the collective dose.

3.2 Analysis of Aggregate Data

3.2.1 Number of Records for Monitored Individuals

The number of records for monitored individuals 

represents the size of the DOE worker population 

monitored for radiation dose. The number represents 

the sum of all records for monitored individuals, 

including all DOE employees, contractors, and 

subcontractors, as well as members of the public. The 

number of monitored individuals is the number of 

monitoring records submitted by each site. Because 

individuals may have more than one monitoring record, 

they may be counted more than once. Although an 

individual may be counted more than once, the overall 

effect on the numbers and analysis is minimal. The 

number of records for monitored individuals is an 

indication of the size of a dosimetry program, but it is 

not necessarily an indication of the size of the exposed 

workforce. This is because of the conservative practice 

at some DOE facilities of providing radiation dose 

monitoring to individuals for reasons other than the 

potential for exposure to radiation and/or radioactive 

materials exceeding the monitoring thresholds 

specified in10 C.F.R. 835.402. Many individuals 

are monitored for reasons such as security, 

administrative convenience, and legal liability. 

Some sites offer monitoring for any individual who 

requests monitoring, independent of the potential 

for exposure. For this reason, the number of records 

for workers who receive a measurable dose best 

represents the exposed workforce.

3.2.2 Number of Records for Individuals with 

Measurable Dose

DOE uses the number of individuals receiving a 

measurable dose to represent the exposed workforce 

size. The number of individuals with a measurable 

dose includes any individual with a reported 

detectable dose greater than zero TED.

Over the past 10-year period, 99.99% of the 

individuals receiving measurable dose have received 

doses below the 2 rems (20 mSv) TED ACL, which 

is well below the DOE regulatory limit of 5 rems (50 

mSv) TED. 

Exhibits 3-1a and 3-1b show the number of DOE and 

contractor workers, the total number of workers 

Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE

For 2010, 67% of the DOE workforce was monitored 

for radiation dose, and 14% of monitored 

individuals received a measurable dose. 

Exhibit 3-1a:

Monitoring of the DOE Workforce, 2006–2010.

*The number of DOE and contractor workers was determined 

from the total annual work hours at DOE [9] converted to fulltime equivalents.
3-2 DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

overall performance of radiation protection programs 

to keep individual exposures and collective exposures 

ALARA. 

As shown in Exhibit 3-2, the collective TED increased at 

DOE by 30% from 726 person-rems (7.26 person-Sv) in 

2009 to 945 person-rems (9.45 person-Sv) in 2010.

The internal dose is based on the 50-year Committed 

Effective Dose (CED) methodology. Under this 

methodology, the cumulative dose received from the 

intake of radioactive material over the next 50 years is 

assigned to the individual as a one-time dose in the year 

of intake.

The internal dose component of the collective TED 

increased by 86% from 51.1 person-rems (511 personmSv) in 2009 to 94.9 person-rems (949 person-mSv) in 

2010. The collective photon dose increased by 28% from 

547 person-rems (5.47 person-Sv) in 2009 to 698 personrems (6.98 person-Sv) in 2010.

The neutron component of the TED increased by 

18% from 129 person-rems (1.29 person-Sv) in 2009 

to 152 person-rems (1.52 person-Sv) in 2010. This is 

due primarily to the 167% increase in neutron dose 

at Hanford and the 54% increase in neutron dose at 

SRNS. Hanford attributed the increase in neutron 

dose primarily to the clean-out and removal of glove 

boxes at the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP). The 

increase in work was a result of an increase in ARRA 

funds for this effort. SRNS attributes approximately 

40% of the increase in neutron dose to the change in 

radiation weighting factors for neutrons as a result of the 

implementation of the amendment to 10 C.F.R. 835.

Exhibit 3-1b:

Monitoring of the DOE Workforce, 2006–2010.

Year

DOE & 

Contractor 

Workforce

Number of 

Workers 

Monitored

Percent of 

Workers 

Monitored*

Number 

Monitored 

w/Measurable 

Dose

Percent 

Monitored 

w/Measurable 

Dose*

2006 123,768 91,280 74%▼ 12,953 14%▼

2007 122,660 86,651 71%▼ 11,102 13%▼

2008 122,139 83,208 68%▼ 11,287 14%▲

2009 125,272 86,371 69%▲ 11,721 14%

2010 135,266 91,229 67%▼ 13,004 14%

5-Year Average 125,821 87,748 70% 12,013 14%

monitored for radiation dose, the number of individuals 

with a measurable dose, and the relative percentages for 

the past 5 years.

Over the past 5 years, the percentage of individuals 

monitored for radiation exposure has remained within 

4% of the 5-year average; the percentage of monitored 

individuals receiving any measurable radiation dose 

each year has been within 1% of the 5-year average. 

Eleven of the reporting sites experienced decreases in 

the number of workers with a measurable dose from 

2009 to 2010. The largest decrease in total number 

of workers with a measurable dose occurred at the 

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. Eighteen of the 

reporting sites experienced increases in the number of 

workers with a measurable dose from 2009 to 2010. The 

largest increase in the number of workers receiving a 

measurable dose occurred at the Savannah River Site 

(SRS) (which includes Savannah River Nuclear Solutions 

[SRNS] and Savannah River Remediation [SRR]). A 

discussion of activities at the highest dose facilities is 

included in Section 3.4.3.

3.2.3 Collective Dose

The collective dose is the sum of the dose received by 

all individuals with a measurable dose and is measured 

in units of person-rem (person-sievert [Sv]). As used in 

this report, the collective dose is a measure of the overall 

occupational radiation exposure at DOE facilities and 

includes the dose to all DOE employees, contractors, 

and subcontractors, as well as members of the public 

who are monitored during a visit to a DOE facility. DOE 

monitors the collective dose as one measure of the 

* Up arrows indicate an increase from the previous year's value. Down arrows indicate a decrease from the previous year's value.
Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-3

Exhibit 3-2:

Components of TED, 2006–2010.

The collective TED increased by 30% at DOE 

from 2009 to 2010.

The collective internal dose increased by 86% 

from 2009 to 2010.

Neutron dose increased by 18% from 2009 

to 2010.

Photon dose increased by 28% from 2009 to 

2010.

Nine of the DOE sites reported decreases in the 

collective TED from the 2009 values, while 21 of the DOE 

sites reported increases. The five sites that contributed 

most (79%) of the DOE collective TED in 2010 were (in 

descending order of collective dose for 2010) Savannah 

River - 19% (including SRNS and SRR), Hanford - 18% 

(including the Hanford Site, Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory, and the Office of River Protection), Oak 

Ridge sites - 15% (including East Tennessee Technology 

Park [ETTP], Y-12, Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

[ORNL], and Oak Ridge Institute for Science and 

Education), Idaho - 14% (including Idaho National 

Laboratory and Idaho Cleanup Project), and Los Alamos 

National Laboratory (LANL) - 13%. All five sites reported 

increases in the collective TED in 2010 over 2009. 

3.2.4 Average Measurable Dose

The average measurable dose to DOE workers, a key 

radiation dose indicator, is calculated by dividing the 

collective dose (i.e., TED or CED) by the number of 

individuals with a measurable dose for each dose type. 

The average measurable TED is shown in Exhibit 3-3. 

The average measurable TED increased by 18% from 

Effective Dose from photons—the 

component of external dose from 

gamma or X-ray electromagnetic 

radiation (also includes energetic betas)

Effective dose from neutrons—the 

component of external dose from 

neutrons ejected from the nucleus of an 

atom during nuclear reactions

Internal dose—radiation dose resulting 

from radioactive material taken into the 

body

* The percentages in parentheses represent the percentage of each dose 

component to the collective TED.

Exhibit 3-3:

Average Measurable TED, 2006–2010
3-4 DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

0.062 rem (0.62 mSv) in 2009 to 0.073 rem (0.73 mSv) 

in 2010 and is above the 5-year average for the first 

time since 2007. While the collective dose and average 

measurable dose serve as measures of the magnitude of 

the dose accrued by DOE workers, they do not indicate 

the distribution of doses among the worker population.

3.2.5 Dose Distribution

Exposure data are commonly analyzed in terms of dose 

intervals to depict the dose distribution among the 

worker population. Exhibit 3-4 shows the number of 

individuals in each of 18 different dose ranges. 

The number of individuals receiving doses above 

0.1 rem (1 mSv) is included to show the number of 

individuals with doses above the monitoring threshold 

specified in 10 C.F.R. 835.402(a) and (c) [6].

Exhibit 3-4 shows that the dose distribution for 2010 

was slightly higher in all but two ranges to the 2009 

data. Ninety-nine percent of the individuals monitored 

had doses less than 0.25 rem (2.5 mSv). It also shows that 

the collective TED has increased each year from 2008 to 

2010, with a significant increase (30%) for 2010. In 2010, 

it can be seen that the distribution of doses above 0.5 rem 

(5 mSv) remained comparable with the 2009 distribution 

with the exception of one over exposure. See Section 3.3.1. 

Another way to examine the dose distribution is to analyze 

the percentage of the dose received above a certain dose 

value as compared with the total collective dose.

The United Nations’ Sources and Effects of Ionizing 

Radiation, United Nations Scientific Committee on the 

Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) 2000 Report to 

the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes, Volume I

[10], recommends the calculation of a parameter “SR” 

to aid in the examination of the distribution of radiation 

exposure among workers. The parameter SR is defined 

to be the ratio of the annual collective dose incurred by 

workers whose annual doses exceed 1.5 rems (15 mSv) 

to the total annual collective dose. The UNSCEAR report 

notes that a dose level of 1.5 rems (15 mSv) may not be 

useful where doses are consistently lower than this level, 

Exhibit 3-4:

Distribution of TED by Dose Range, 2006–2010.

TED Range (rem) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Number of Individuals in Each Dose Range*

Less than measurable 78,327 75,549 71,921 74,650 78,225

Measurable to 0.1 10,815 8,951 9,341 9,723 10,318

0.10–0.25 1,441 1,428 1,425 1,398 1,860

0.25–0.5 520 519 421 491 692

0.5–0.75 120 147 73 71 101

0.75–1.0 36 34 20 28 24

1–2 21 22 6 10 8

2–3 1

3–4

4–5

5–6

6–7

7–8 1

8–9

9–10

10–11

11–12

>12 1

Total number of records for monitored 

individuals 91,280 86,651 83,208 86,371 91,229

Number with measurable dose 12,953 11,102 11,287 11,721 13,004

Number with dose >0.1 rem 2,138 2,151 1,946 1,998 2,686

% of individuals with measurable dose 14% 13% 14% 14% 14%

Collective TED (person-rems) 812.6 797.8 690.2 726.4 945.4

Average measurable TED (rem) 0.063 0.072 0.061 0.062 0.073

* Individuals with doses equal to the dose value separating the dose ranges are included in the next higher dose range.
Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-5

and it is recommended that research organizations 

report SR values lower than 1.5 rems (15 mSv) where 

appropriate. For this reason, DOE calculates and 

tracks the SR at dose levels of 0.100 rem (1 mSv), 

0.250 rem (2.5 mSv), 0.500 rem (5 mSv), 1.0 rem (10 

mSv), and 2.0 rems (20 mSv). The SR values shown 

in Exhibit 3-5 were calculated by summing the TED to 

each individual who received a TED greater than or 

equal to the specified dose level divided by the total 

collective TED. This ratio is presented as a percentage 

rather than a decimal fraction.

Exhibit 3-5 shows the dose distribution given by 

percentage of collective TED above each of five dose 

values from 0.1 rem (1 mSv) to 2 rems (20 mSv). 

This graph facilitates the examination of a property 

described above that may be used as an indication of 

effective ALARA programs at DOE: a relatively small 

percentage of the collective dose accrued in the 

higher dose ranges. Exhibit 3-5 also shows that each 

successively higher dose range is responsible for a 

lower percentage of the collective dose. The values for 

2007 were elevated primarily from the one individual 

who received a TED above 5 rems (50 mSv) from an 

intake of plutonium at LANL. In 2010, the values for 

each dose range increased significantly above the 

values for 2009. This was due primarily to the one 

exposure in excess of the 5 rems TED limit at SRS. As in 

2007, an individual receiving a dose of this magnitude 

will increase the percentages across all dose ranges. 

Apart from the exposure in excess of limits, the values 

for 2010 remained the same as in 2009. 

Exhibit 3-5:

Percentage of Collective TED Above Dose Values During 2006–2010 3.3 Analysis of Individual Dose Data

The previous analysis is based on aggregate data for 

DOE. From an individual worker perspective, as well 

as a regulatory perspective, it is important to closely 

examine the doses received by individuals in the 

elevated dose ranges to thoroughly understand the 

circumstances leading to these doses in the workplace 

and to better manage and avoid these doses in the 

future. The following sections focus on doses received 

by individuals that were in excess of the DOE limit (5 

rems [50 mSv] TED) and the DOE recommended ACL 

(2 rems [20 mSv] TED).

3.3.1 Doses in Excess of DOE Limit

Exhibit 3-6 shows the number of doses in excess of 

the TED regulatory limit (5 rems [50 mSv]) from 2006 

through 2010. One individual received a TED in excess 

of 5 rems (50 mSv) in 2007 from an intake of plutonium 

at LANL. 

In 2010, one individual received a TED in excess of 5 

rems (50 mSv). An event occurred in June 2010 at SRS 

that led to an exposure in excess of DOE annual limits.

A technician received a puncture wound in a glovebox 

while performing remediation work. The technician 

was placing a flag indicator in a waste can and 

accidentally punctured his protective gloves, resulting 

in an internal contamination of Pu-238 and Am-241. 

Transuranics such as plutonium require numerous 

bioassay measurements taken over a long period of 

time to accurately determine dose. In October 2011, 

In 2010, one individual received a TED in excess of 

5 rems (50 mSv).

Exhibit 3-6:

Number of Individuals Exceeding 2 rems ACL and the 5 rems Annual Limit, 

2006–2010.

Year >2 rems >5 rems

2006

2007 1

2008 1

2009

2010 1
3-6 DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

the final dose was determined to be of 31.589 rems CED, 

and a CEqD to the bone surface of 1,043.190 rems. For 

more information on this event, see the Type B Accident 

Investigation Board Report “Employee Puncture Wound 

at the F-TRU Waste Remediation Facility”, June 14, 2010 

and the Preliminary Notice of Violation, NEA-2011-02, 

issued to SRNS July 22, 2011.

3.3.2 Doses in Excess of Administrative Control 

Level

The Radiological Control Standard (RCS) [11] 

recommends a 2 rems (20 mSv) ACL for TED, which 

should not be exceeded without prior DOE approval. 

The RCS recommends that each DOE site establish its 

own more restrictive ACL that would require contractor 

management approval to be exceeded. 

As shown in Exhibit 3-6, three individuals have exceeded 

the 2 rems (20 mSv) ACL in the past 5 years. Two of the 

three individuals also exceeded the 5 rems (50 mSv) 

annual limit.

3.3.3 Internal Depositions of Radioactive Material

As shown in Exhibit 3-7, some of the highest doses to 

individuals have been the result of intakes of radioactive 

material. For this reason DOE tracks the number of 

intakes as a performance measure in this report. DOE 

emphasizes the importance of taking measures to 

avoid intakes and maintain doses as low as reasonably 

achievable.

Exhibit 3-8 shows the number of internal depositions of 

radioactive material (an indicator of worker intakes), 

Exhibit 3-7:

Doses in Excess of DOE Limit, 2006–2010.

Exhibit 3-8:

Number of Internal Depositions, Collective CED, and Average Measurable CED, 2006–2010.

Year

Total Effective

Dose (TED) 

(external + 

internal dose)

(rem)

Effective Dose 

(ED) from 

external

sources

(rem)

Committed 

Effective Dose 

(CED) from 

intakes

(rem)

Committed 

Equivalent 

Dose (CEqD) 

from intakes

(rem)

Intake

Nuclides

Facility

Types Site

2006 None reported

2007 7.530 0 7.530 130 Pu-238, Pu-239 Research, General LANL

2008 2.106 0.286 1.820 60 Pu-238, Pu-239 TA-55 Facility LANL

2009 None reported

2010 31.618 0.029 31.589 1,043.190 Pu-238 TRU Waste 

Remediation Facility SRS

Number of Internal Collective CED Average Measurable CED per

Depositions* (person-rem) Deposition (rem)

5-yr. avg.

1,331

5-yr. avg.

63.3

5-yr. avg.

0.047

* The number of internal depositions represents the number of internal dose records with positive results reported for each individual. 

Individuals may have multiple intakes in a year and, therefore, may be counted more than once.
Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-7

collective CED, and average measurable CED for 2006 

to 2010. The number of internal depositions increased 

by 28% from 1,288 in 2009 to 1,646 in 2010, while 

the collective CED increased by 86%. The average 

measurable CED increased from 0.040 rem (0.40 mSv) in 

2009 to 0.058 rem (0.58 mSv) in 2010. 

Over half (60%) of the collective CED in 2010 was 

from uranium intakes at the Y-12 National Security 

Complex (Y-12) during the operation and management 

of Enriched Uranium Operations facilities at the site. 

Compared with external dose, relatively few workers 

receive measurable internal dose, so larger fluctuations 

in the number of workers and collective CED, than for 

other components of TED, may occur from year to year. 

Exhibit 3-9 shows the distribution of the internal dose 

from 2006 to 2010. The total number of individuals with 

intakes in each dose range is the sum of all records 

of intake in the subject dose range. Individuals with 

multiple intakes during the year may be counted more 

than once. Doses below 0.020 rem (0.20 mSv) are shown 

as a separate dose range, which shows the large number 

of doses in this low dose range. The increase in the 

number of individuals with measurable CED in 2010 is 

primarily due to the increase of individuals receiving less 

than 0.100 rem (1 mSv). There was one internal dose 

above 5 rems (50 mSv) CED in 2010.

The internal dose records indicate that the majority of 

the intakes result in very low doses. In 2010, 54% of 

the internal dose records were for doses below 0.020 

rem (0.20 mSv). Over the 5-year period, internal doses 

from intakes accounted for 8% of the collective TED, 

and 10% of the individuals who received internal doses 

were above the monitoring threshold (0.1 person-rem 

[1 mSv]) specified in 10 C.F.R. 835.402(c) [6]. It should 

be noted that the one individual who received a dose of 

31.589 rems in 2010 contributed to 33% of the collective 

CED in 2010 (see Section 3.3.1).

 

3.3.4 Bioassay and Intake Summary Information

For the monitoring year 2010, bioassay and intake 

summary information was required to be reported under 

DOE M 231.1-1A [8]. During the past 3 years, urinalysis 

has been reported as the most common method of 

bioassay measurement used to determine internal doses 

to the individuals. Exhibit 3-10 shows the breakdown 

of bioassay measurements by measurement type. 

The measurements reported under “in vivo” include 

direct measurements of the radioactive material in the 

body of the monitored person. Examples of in vivo 

measurements include whole body counts and lung or 

thyroid counts. The measurements reported in “Other” 

Exhibit 3-9:

Internal Dose Distribution from Intakes, 2006–2010.

Year

Number of Individuals with CED in the Ranges (rem)* Total 

No. of 

Indiv.**

Total 

Collective 

CED 

(person-rem)

Meas. 

<0.020

0.020-

0.100

0.100-

0.250

0.250-

0.500

0.500-

0.750

0.750-

1.000

1.0-

2.0

2.0-

3.0

3.0-

4.0

4.0-

5.0 >5.0

2006 664 474 106 15 1 1,260 47.200

2007 623 436 151 22 3 1 1 1,237 65.400

2008 602 460 131 25 2 2 1 1,223 58.000

2009 701 449 117 16 4 1 1,288 51.100

2010 890 600 133 19 1 1 1 1 1,646 94.895

* Individuals with doses equal to the dose value separating the dose ranges are included in the next higher dose range.

** Individuals may have multiple intakes in a year and, therefore, may be counted more than once.

Exhibit 3-10:

Bioassay and Air Sampling Measurements, 2008-2010.
3-8 DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

are for air samples taken in the workplace that are used 

to calculate the amount of airborne radioactive material 

taken into the body and the resultant internal dose. 

Note that the numbers shown are based on the number 

of measurements taken, not the number of individuals 

monitored. Individuals may have measurements taken 

more than once during the year. Sixty-four percent of 

the urinalysis measurements in 2010 were performed at 

three sites: LANL, Y-12, and Hanford. The majority of the 

bioassay measurements reported as “Other” were from 

air sampling and account for 24% of the measurements. 

Ninety-one percent of the measurements reported as 

“Other” were performed at SRS. Over half of the in 

vivo measurements were from Hanford. Y-12 performs 

the largest number of bioassay measurements overall, 

comprising 18% of the total measurements taken. 

Exhibit 3-11 shows the breakdown of the collective CED 

by radionuclide for 2010. Uranium-234 accounts for the 

largest percentage of the collective dose, with over 99% 

of this dose accrued at Y-12. Essentially all of the dose 

from plutonium-238 was a result of the individual who 

exceeded the DOE dose limit at SRS (see Section 3.3.1).

Exhibit 3-11: 

Collective CED by Radionuclide, 2010.

3.4 Analysis of Site Data

3.4.1 Collective TEDE by Site and Other Facilities

The collective TED for 2008 through 2010 for the 

major DOE sites and operations/field offices is shown 

graphically in Exhibit 3-12. A list of the collective TED 

and number of individuals with measurable TED by 

DOE sites is shown in Exhibit 3-13. The collective TED 

increased by 30% from 726 person-rems (7.26 person-Sv) 

in 2009 to 945 person-rems (9.45 person-Sv) in 2010, with 

Savannah River (including SRNS and SRR), Hanford 

(including the Hanford Site, Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory, and the Office of River Protection), Oak 

Ridge sites (including East Tennessee Technology Park 

[ETTP], Y-12, Oak Ridge National Laboratory [ORNL], 

and Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education), INL 

(including Idaho National Laboratory and Idaho Cleanup 

Project), and LANL contributing 79% of the total DOE 

collective TED.

3.4.2 Changes by Site from 2009 to 2010

Exhibit 3-14 shows the collective TED, the number with a 

measurable dose, the average measurable TED, and the 

percentage of the collective TED delivered above 0.500 

rem by site for 2010, as well as the percentage change in 

these values from the previous year. Some of the largest 

percentages of change occur at relatively small facilities 

where conditions may fluctuate from year to year. The 

changes that have the most impact in the overall values 

at DOE occur at sites with a relatively large collective 

dose in addition to a large percentage change, such as 

Hanford in 2010.

The percentage of the collective TED above 0.500 rem is 

an indicator of the distribution of dose to individuals. A 

smaller fraction of the monitored population received 

doses above 0.5 rem in 2010. See section 3.2.5 for more 

information on the characteristics of the distribution of 

doses to individuals above a certain dose value.

3.4.3 Activities Significantly Contributing to 

Collective Dose in 2010

In an effort to identify the reasons for changes in the 

collective dose at DOE, several of the larger sites were 

contacted to provide information on activities that 

significantly contributed to the collective dose for 2010. 

These sites (Savannah River, Hanford, Oak Ridge, INL, 

and LANL) had a collective dose over 100 person-rems 

and were the top contributors to the collective TED in 

2010. These sites comprised 79% of the total collective 

TED at DOE. All sites reported increases in the collective 

TED, which contributed to a 30% increase in the DOE 

collective TED from 726 person-rems (7.26 person-Sv) in 

2009 to 945 person-rems (9.45 person-Sv) in 2010. The 

sites significantly contributing to the collective TED in 

2010 are shown in Exhibit 3-15, including a description of 

activities that affected the collective TED.
Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-9 Exhibit 3-12: Collective TED by DOE Site for 2008–2010.
3-10 DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

Exhibit 3-13:

Collective TED and Number of Individuals with Measurable TED by DOE Site, 2008–2010.

2008 2009 2010

Site

Collective 

TED 

(personrem)

Number 

with 

Meas. 

TED

Collective 

TED 

(personrem)

Number 

with 

Meas. 

TED

Collective 

TED 

(personrem)

Number 

with 

Meas. 

TED

Ames Laboratory 0.5 30 0.7 31 0.9 32

Argonne National Laboratory 13.2 128 17.6 137 30.8 173

Brookhaven National Laboratory 5.4 149 5.2 180 11.5 214

Energy Technology Engineering Center 0.1 15 0.1 43 0.3 54

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 15.4 166 18.8 243 11.2 169

Hanford:

Hanford Site 76.5 1,778 93.4 1,634 112.5 1,673

Office of River Protection 18.3 372 20.6 346 28.5 535

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 11.1 226 15.3 242 27.5 280

Idaho National Laboratory 120.4 1,956 111.3 1,808 129.9 1,889

Kansas City Plant 0.1 39 0.5 10 0.0 10

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 0.4 8 0.6 14 1.1 16

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 20.4 129 26.1 182 18.3 146

Los Alamos National Laboratory 107.3 1,219 115.7 1,392 125.4 1,335

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 0.0 3 0.0 5 0.0 3

Nevada National Security Site 5.2 75 5.5 86 3.0 73

New Brunswick Laboratory 0.1 8 0.1 3

Oak Ridge:

East Tennessee Technology Park 0.4 23 1.1 37 1.2 43

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education 0.2 53 0.2 62 0.1 56

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 42.7 492 46.9 659 74.0 739

Y-12 National Security Complex 72.1 1,301 61.9 1,379 69.4 1,634

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant 1.3 44 1.2 79 1.3 71

Pantex Plant 16.5 287 25.2 302 26.1 303

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant 1.4 36 1.5 32 3.0 63

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory 1.3 123 0.8 101 0.7 79

Sandia National Laboratories 7.2 160 4.1 88 2.9 59

Savannah River Site 127.1 2,151 108.8 2,183 179.6 2,587

Separations Process Research Unit 0.3 10 7.9 74

SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory 0.6 25 0.2 6 0.1 4

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility 1.5 51 0.7 27 3.1 67

Uranium Mill Tailings Remediation Action Project 0.1 7 3.6 92 31.5 237

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 1.1 63 0.9 68 1.2 62

West Valley Demonstration Project 22.2 157 37.0 230 41.9 308

Service Center Personnel* 0.5 14 0.5 10 0.4 16

Totals** 690.5 11,288 726.4 11,721 945.4 13,004

Note: Bold values indicate the greatest value in each column.

* Includes service center personnel from Albuquerque and Oak Ridge in addition to several smaller facilities not associated with a DOE 

site.

** The collective TED totals are calculated from the dose records that are reported in millirem while the values shown are rounded to the 

nearest tenth of a rem.
Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-11

Exhibit 3-14:

Site Dose Data, 2010.

Note: Bold and boxed values indicate the greatest value in each column. Please see section 3.4.3.1 for more information.

* Includes service center personnel from Albuquerque and Oak Ridge in addition to several smaller facilities not associated with a DOE 

site.

2010

Site

Collective 

TED 

(personrem)

Percent 

Change 

from 

2009

Number 

with 

Meas. 

Dose

Percent 

Change 

from 

2009

Avg. 

Meas. 

TED 

(rem)

Percent 

Change 

from 

2009

Percentage 

of Coll. 

TED above

0.500 rem

Percent 

Change 

from 2009

Ames Laboratory 0.907 26%▲ 32 3%▲ 0.028 23%▲

Argonne National Laboratory 30.799 76%▲ 173 28%▲ 0.178 37%▲ 52% 58% ▲

Brookhaven National Laboratory 11.529 122%▲ 214 19%▲ 0.054 87%▲ 6%

Energy Technology Engineering Center 0.292 134%▲ 54 26%▲ 0.005 86%▲

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 11.220 -40%▼ 169 -30%▼ 0.066 -14%▼

Hanford:

Hanford Site 112.522 21%▲ 1,673 2%▲ 0.067 18%▲ 1% -92% ▼

Office of River Protection 28.522 38%▲ 535 55%▲ 0.053 -11%▼

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 27.500 79%▲ 280 16%▲ 0.098 55%▲ 45% 320% ▲

Idaho National Laboratory 129.945 17%▲ 1,889 4%▲ 0.069 12%▲ 5% 406% ▲

Kansas City Plant 0.046 -91%▼ 10 0.005 -91%▼

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 1.097 79%▲ 16 14%▲ 0.069 57%▲

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 18.349 -30%▼ 146 -20%▼ 0.126 -12%▼ 45% -32% ▼

Los Alamos National Laboratory 125.389 8%▲ 1,335 -4%▼ 0.094 13%▲ 24% 6% ▲

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 0.022 3 0.007 

Nevada National Security Site 2.999 -46%▼ 73 -15%▼ 0.041 -36%▼

New Brunswick Laboratory

Oak Ridge:

East Tennessee Technology Park 1.187 6%▲ 43 16%▲ 0.028 -9%▼

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education 0.114 -51%▼ 56 -10%▼ 0.002 -45%▼

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 74.013 58%▲ 739 12%▲ 0.100 41%▲ 10% 74% ▲

Y-12 National Security Complex 69.430 13%▲ 1,634 18%▲ 0.042 -5%▼ 5% -31% ▼

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant 1.330 16%▲ 71 -10%▼ 0.019 29%▲

Pantex Plant 26.131 4%▲ 303 0.086 4%▲

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant 2.960 92%▲ 63 97%▲ 0.047 -2%▼

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory 0.663 -16%▼ 79 -22%▼ 0.008 8%▲

Sandia National Laboratories 2.885 -30%▼ 59 -33%▼ 0.049 4%▲

Savannah River Site 179.572 65% ▲ 2,587 19%▲ 0.069 39%▲ 18% 793% ▲

Separations Process Research Unit 7.850 74 0.106 28%

SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory 0.053 -69%▼ 4 -33%▼ 0.013 -53%▼

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility 3.111 351%▲ 67 148%▲ 0.04 6 82%▲

Uranium Mill Tailings Remediation Action Project 31.497 769% ▲ 237 158%▲ 0.133 237% ▲

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 1.199 32%▲ 62 -9%▼ 0.019 45%▲

West Valley Demonstration Project 41.873 13%▲ 308 34%▲ 0.136 -15%▼ 7% -71% ▼

Service Center Personnel* 0.363 -29%▼ 16 7%▲ 0.023 -33%▼

Totals 945.369 30%▲ 13,004 11%▲ 0.073 18%▲ 13% 19% ▲
3-12 DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

Hanford

Percent Change*

2009- Description of Activities at the Site 2010

(last yr.)

2008-

2010

(3 yr.)

2006-

2010

(5 yr.)

Ç Ç Ç

The collective TED at Hanford (which includes Richland Operations 

Office, Office of River Protection, and the Pacific Northwest Site Office 

[PNSO]) increased by 30% from 2009 to 2010.

The increase in collective dose was due to increased Decontamination 

and Decommissioning (D&D) activities at Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) 

and increased retrieval and processing of TRU waste. The neutron dose 

increased as a result of cleanout and removal of glove boxes at PFP. The 

increase in work was a result of an increase in ARRA funds for this effort. 

CED at the Hanford site was low, 0.162 person-rem, but was an increase 

from 2009.

30.3% 59.1% 26.8%

5-yr. avg.

138.9

Exhibit 3-15 :

Activities Significantly Contributing to Collective TED in 2010.

0

50

100

150

200

250

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Collective TED (person-rem)

Savannah River Site

Percent Change*

2009- Description of Activities at the Site 2010

(last yr.)

2008-

2010

(3 yr.)

2006-

2010

(5 yr.)

Ç Ç Ç

For calendar year 2010, Savannah River Site (SRS) cumulative radiation 

exposure totals were over 65% higher than 2009. SRS includes Savannah 

River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS) and Savannah River Remediation (SRR).

For SRNS, the increase was the result of handling higher dose rate 

transuranic (TRU) drums, the Solid Waste Pad 16 spill, a new method for 

culvert mining in Solid Waste, and continued decommissioning work in 

Area Completion under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(ARRA). SRR realized an increase from continued bulk waste removal in F 

and H Tank Farms, salt processing at Saltstone, and tank closure activities 

at the Modular Caustic Extraction Unit. The internal dose methods 

of ICRP 60 were implemented at the beginning of 2006 by formal 

exemption to the previous rule, with a net effect of reducing calculated 

doses for TRU materials. However, the neutron dose methods were 

implemented 1/1/2010. The latter changes resulted in a 39% increase 

at SRS in dose assigned from given neutron exposure. In addition, an 

individual received an internal dose of 31.589 rems (CED) from an intake 

of plutonium that contributed to 18% of the collective TED in 2010.

65.1% 41.3% 67.5%

0

50

100

150

200

250

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Collective TED (person-rem)

5-yr. avg.

127.0

Oak Ridge

Percent Change*

2009- Description of Activities at the Site 2010

(last yr.)

2008-

2010

(3 yr.)

2006-

2010

(5 yr.)

Ç Ç Ç

Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12) – Babcock & Wilcox (B&W)

At Y-12, the collective TED increased 12% from 61.856 person-rems 

in 2009 to 69.430 person-rems in 2010. The total persons monitored 

increased by nearly 18% from 5,791 to 6,830.

While the total collective exposure at Y-12 increased in 2010 as 

compared to 2009, on average exposures decreased. An additional 

1,041 individuals were monitored, including 382 additional people 

monitored for internal exposure. Most of the additional people 

monitored were a part of the ARRA projects being conducted at Y-12. 

Utilizing the resources provided by the ARRA, Y-12 was able to rid the 

site of unnecessary legacy material and to perform demolition of excess 

buildings thereby reducing future dose to workers.

The organization with the largest contribution to Y-12’s collective dose is 

the Production organization. This organization accounts for 46% of the 

site’s overall dose. Despite increased workloads in many areas within

31.6% 25.4% 82.0%

5-yr. avg.

111.2

0

50

100

150

200

250

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Collective TED (person-rem)

* Up arrows indicate an increase in change. Down arrows indicate a decrease in change.
Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-13

* Up arrows indicate an increase in change. Down arrows indicate a decrease in change.

Oak Ridge

Percent Change*

2009- Description of Activities at the Site 2010

(last yr.)

2008-

2010

(3 yr.)

2006-

2010

(5 yr.)

production, the average dose to production personnel remained 

essentially the same as in 2009, with a slight reduction in the average 

internal exposure. Production also accounts for most of the internal 

exposure received at the plant. The average internal exposure in this 

group is 47 millirem with the next highest group averaging only 18 

millirem (internal). The Facilities, Infrastructure and Services organization 

makes the second largest contribution (15% of the total). Its average 

exposures increased in 2010 by 3 millirem primarily due to additional 

workload in the production areas.

The 2010 collective CED increased 16.1% from 49.2 person-rems in 

2009 to 57.1 person-rems in 2010; however, the average CED increased 

only 0.6% from 0.019 rem in 2009 to 0.020 rem in 2010 per monitored 

individual. There were an additional 382 workers monitored for internal 

exposure. There were 148 workers who received an internal dose equal 

to or in excess of 0.100 person-rem (CED). 

East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) – Bechtel Jacobs Company 

LLC (BJC)

There were a total of 2,582 individuals monitored by BJC in 2010, 

resulting in a collective TED of 4.27 person-rems and a total CED of 0.164 

person-rem for all BJC sites.

The increase in TED and total neutron dose for 2010 as compared with 

2009 is attributed to an increase in waste operations tasks at ORNL. The 

increase in CED for 2010 as compared to 2009 is due to seven individuals 

that had a CED in excess of 0.010 person-rem. Individual CED was 

primarily from routine bioassay measurements and not the result of any 

specific radiological event. Most of the individuals had positive bioassay 

samples during a period of work in areas with elevated air monitoring 

results. Most of the individuals were associated with process equipment 

segmentation work at the K-25 Building D&D project. There were no 

unusual events related to occupational radiation exposure at BJC facilities 

for 2010.

ORNL-UT Battelle

The reported TED for ORNL during 2010 is about 17.5% higher than 

the 2009 reported TED. During 2010, ORNL saw an increase in isotope 

processing and cleanup and waste disposal activities which attributed to 

this increase. The waste disposal activities were due to tasks performed 

during isotope processing.

Exhibit 3-15 (Continued):

Activities Significantly Contributing to Collective TED in 2010.

Idaho National 

Laboratory

Percent Change*

2009- Description of Activities at the Site 2010

(last yr.)

2008-

2010

(3 yr.)

2006-

2010

(5 yr.)

Ç Ç

At the Idaho site, the collective TED increased by 17% from 2009 to 2010.

D&D Reactor Testing Complex activities included Voluntary Consent 

Order (VCO) activities relating to TRA-613, 713, 630, 730 and associated 

underground piping systems. D&D of TRA-604; D&D at TRA-603, 

including Material Test Reactor (MTR) monolith demolition; and the lifting 

of the Reactor in preparation for transport to ICDF was performed, as well 

as the cleanout and characterization of the TRA-632 hot cell facility. D&D 

work at Reactor Testing Complex (RTC) including the underground VCO 

piping and the MTR reactor work contributed to increased dose. At the 

Materials Test Complex (MTC), the work involved high doses during lead 

removal necessary to complete asbestos removal on process piping, as 

well as reactor internals demolition. INTEC D&D work on sample blisters 

and remaining cell pregrouting evolutions also added to increased dose.

16.7% 8.2% 19.6%

È

5-yr. avg.

131.4

0

50

100

150

200

250

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Collective TED (person-rem)
3-14 DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

Los Alamos

National Laboratory

Percent Change*

2009- Description of Activities at the Site 2010

(last yr.)

2008-

2010

(3 yr.)

2006-

2010

(5 yr.)

Ç Ç

The collective TED at LANL increased by 8% from 2009 to 2010. 

TA-55 Plutonium Facility operations accounted for the majority of 

occupational dose at LANL in calendar year 2010— historically consistent 

for LANL. Occupational dose was accrued from manufacturing and 

related weapons work, Pu-238 work, repackaging materials, and 

providing radiological control technicians and other infrastructure 

support for radiological work and facility maintenance at TA-55. 

In addition to TA-55 operations, significant portions of LANL dose were 

accrued by workers performing retrieval, repackaging, and shipping of 

radioactive solid waste at LANL waste facilities at TA-50 and TA-54 and 

workers performing programmatic and maintenance work at the TA-53 

Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE).

8.4% 16.9% 23.5%

È

* Up arrows indicate an increase in change. Down arrows indicate a decrease in change.

3.4.3.1 Further Detail on Activities Significantly 

Contributing to Collective Dose in 2010

In addition to the information provided in Exhibit 3-15, 

several of the DOE sites provided further information on 

operations conducted during the monitoring year. DOE 

M 231.1-1A, Appendix G, Section 1, specifies that the sites 

should provide a description of activities conducted at 

the site as it relates to the collective radiation exposure 

received. The following descriptions are excerpts from 

the transmittal letters from DOE sites in 2010.

Argonne National Laboratory

The collective dose (TED) for the monitoring year 

2010 at Argonne is approximately 31 person-rems, up 

from approximately 18 person-rems the previous year. 

The increase from 2009 was approximately 75%. No 

individuals exceeded 2 rems TED this monitoring year.

The Alpha Gamma Hot Cell Facility (AGHCF) was 

the primary dose contributor in 2010. There were 

five AGHCF workers with an annual individual dose 

(TED) exceeding 1.0 person-rem. Their doses were 

between 1.0 person-rem and 1.3 person-rems. The 

doses at AGHCF were accrued mainly during campaigns 

to remove radioactive waste from the hot cell. The 

number of waste removal campaigns continued to 

increase significantly this year as more funding became 

available and the AGHCF team became more proficient. 

Another major contributor was site waste management 

operations. The radiological safety organization accrued 

considerable dose in monitoring these activities.

Exhibit 3-15 (Continued):

Activities Significantly Contributing to Collective TED in 2010.

5-yr. avg.

132.4

0

50

100

150

200

250

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Collective TED (person-rem)

Brookhaven National Laboratory

The collective total effective dose (TED) at Brookhaven 

National Laboratory (BNL) increased by 122%, from 

5.2 person-rems in 2009 to 11.5 person-rems in 2010. 

All exposures were from Equivalent Dose (EqD). The 

increase in total dose is primarily due to the increase 

in remediation activities at the Brookhaven Graphite 

Research Reactor Project. The highest individual dose 

was 0.651 rem, so no individual exceeded 2 rems TED or 

exceeded any DOE occupational dose limit.

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

The collective TED at Fermi National Accelerator 

Laboratory (Fermilab) for 2010 was 11.22 person-rems. 

During 2010, there was one major shutdown of the 

accelerators that lasted approximately 1 month and 

began on July 19. The shutdown was necessary to 

perform accelerator maintenance and improvements. 

The majority of the work performed during these 

shutdown periods involved Accelerator Division 

personnel, although personnel from other divisions/

sections/centers assisted as necessary. The shutdown 

involved several major projects, involving component 

replacement and upgrades of several machines within 

the accelerator complex. All of the shutdown tasks were 

necessary to achieve the challenging goals of the physics 

research program, while at the same time were aimed at 

reducing beam losses, which is an essential ingredient 

in improving performance and increasing deliverable 

proton intensities. Reducing beam losses also reduces 
Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-15

radioactivation of beam line components and potential 

radiation dose to personnel who must maintain the 

accelerators in the future.

While Fermilab continues to diligently manage a 

Radiation Protection Program, under 10 C.F.R. 835, as 

part of integrated safety management (ISM) to control 

radiation doses to personnel and keep exposures as low 

as is reasonably achievable (ALARA), it has been shown 

for many years now that these necessary shutdowns of 

the accelerators for upgrades, maintenance, and repair 

work do lead to an increase in the TED. The TED for 

2010 is within the expected range for a year in which a 

1-month shutdown occurred.

Kansas City Plant

The Kansas City Plant (KCP) collective TED for these 

individuals was 0.046 person-rem. This represents a 91% 

decrease from last year’s monitoring period. However, 

last year's collective TED was abnormally high due to 

an individual's dose reading of 0.499 rem. Excluding 

that dose, collective doses from all 5 years were similar 

and hence, does not reflect any systemic problem or 

negative trend at the site. The 2010 collective TED more 

accurately reflects the routine activities at the KCP and 

there were no special projects contributing to these 

doses.

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

The collective TED at Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory (LBNL) increased from 0.613 person-rem in 

2009 to 1.075 person-rem in 2010. Ninety two percent of 

the collective TED is the result of radiological activities 

at the Center for Functional Imaging (CFI), specifically 

those activities associated with new radiopharmaceutical 

(F-18/C-11) development.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) 

2010 collective TED of 18.017 person-rems reflects 

a decrease from the 2009 collective TED of 25.834 

person-rems and represents decreased operations in 

the Plutonium Facility and at LLNL. Doses for 2010 are 

as expected. The LLNL – Nevada National Security Site 

(NNSS) 2010 collective TED of 0.332 person-rem reflects 

an increase from the 2009 collective TED of 0.265 personrem. 

Pantex Plant

The DOE/National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) Pantex Plant is the nation’s only facility for 

assembly and disassembly of nuclear explosives. The 

operations that contribute the majority of the dose to 

Pantex Plant workers are operations that expose them 

to large numbers of bare weapon pits (the pits contain 

significant quantities of Special Nuclear Materials). 

These operations include nuclear explosive assembly/

disassembly operations, weapon dismantlement 

programs, life-extension programs, Special Nuclear 

Material Component Re-qualification, and Special 

Nuclear Material staging.

The total population dose to Pantex Plant workers 

increased by 35% in 2010 compared with 2009. The 

increase was due to variations in the specific types 

and quantities of production work performed by B&W 

Pantex. 

 

Sandia National Laboratories

The site collective dose at Sandia National Laboratories 

(SNL) for 2010 is 2.9 person-rems, a 1.5% decrease 

from last year. SNL radiological operations remain 

consistent with recent years’ activities and currently 

include operation of a research reactor, gamma 

irradiation facility, hot cell facility, several pulsedpower accelerators, light laboratory work involving 

X-ray machines and use of tracer radionuclides, 

neutron generator production, and waste operations. 

Approximately 2,500 individuals received dosimetry 

monitoring in 2010.

Separations Process Research Unit

The Separation Process Research Unit Disposition 

Project (SPRU – NY) collective TED for 2010 is 7.887 

person-rems. No individual exceeded 2 rems TED.

The project activities in 2010 of dose concern were 

the continued characterization of facility radiological 

conditions, demolition preparation activities that 

included the decontamination and asbestos abatement 

activities of the SPRU facilities in Buildings G2, H2, 

and the E1/G1 Tunnels. Also included in 2010 is the 

commencement of G2 and H2 Facility demolition and 

activities at the SPRU waste tanks that contributed to 

personnel dose. 

The Separation Process Research Unit Disposition 

Project (SPRU – LA) collective TED for 2010 is 0 personrem.

The SPRU-LA project concluded remediation activities 

in 2010. Approximately 15,000 cubic yards of material, 

removed from approximately a 15-acre site, was 

excavated, packaged, and shipped off site for disposal. 
3-16 DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

dose would be assigned to those workers who were hired 

in support of ARRA program.

West Valley Demonstration Project

Two major projects of dose concern continue to be 

D&D Projects and Waste Management. D&D work in 

extraction cells and support cells included removing and 

packaging contaminated tanks, piping, and components 

in preparation for being declared “Demolition-Ready.” 

Waste Management activities included waste processing 

and shipping for disposal. Waste Management is also 

involved in modifying facilities to accommodate the 

remaining waste to be processed.

The 2010 TED of 41.873 person-rems is approximately 

13% higher than the 2009 TED of 36.985 person-rems. 

This increase was due primarily to an increased level of 

effort in D&D and Waste Management. No individual 

exceeded 2 rems TED.

3.4.4 Summary by Program Office

DOE has divided the responsibility of managing its 

missions among specific program offices. The various 

DOE sites support different functions and therefore 

fall under the authority and management of separate 

program offices. It should be noted that several of the 

DOE sites undertake work supporting multiple program 

offices. However, those sites have a lead program 

office and are not required to report radiation exposure 

by program office, so the exact contribution from 

each program office cannot be determined. In these 

instances, the site is shown under one program office 

but may have significant portions of the dose from work 

done in support of other program offices. Exhibit 3-16

shows the number of individuals with measurable dose, 

the collective TED, and the average measurable TED 

by DOE program office. The Office of Environmental 

Management (EM) and the NNSA account for the largest 

percentages of the collective dose (56% and 26%, 

respectively). The mission of the Office of Environmental 

Management (EM) is to complete the safe cleanup of the 

environmental legacy brought about from five decades 

of nuclear weapons development and governmentsponsored nuclear energy research. NNSA is responsible 

for the management and security of the nation’s 

nuclear weapons, nuclear nonproliferation, and naval 

reactor programs, as well as responding to radiological 

emergencies and the transportation of nuclear weapons 

and special nuclear materials. In general, the missions 

of EM and NNSA require more interaction and activities 

involving radioactive materials. These offices account for 

nearly 82% of the collective dose at DOE.

This was accomplished under approximately 39,000 

RWP-man-hours. As this was the last year of the project 

and all individual doses were zero for the year, there is 

no change in cumulative TED.

SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory

The 2010 collective TED (0.053 person-rem) at SLAC 

is about 31% of the 2009 collective TED (0.169 personrem). These low values in collective TEDs for both years 

are mainly associated with no operational activities 

for high energy physics researchers compared with 

previous years. In particular, the beams from the linear 

accelerator at Sectors 0-19, including associated klystrons 

have been maintained inactive since 2008. A review 

of the Radiological Work Permit (RWP) program in 

2010 also shows no significant works involving elevated 

personal exposures. Thus, the collective dose reduction 

in 2010 was in line with less work activities conducted in 

Radiological Areas, especially in High Radiation Areas 

and Contamination Areas during 2010. No individuals 

exceeded 2 rems (20 mSv) TED or any DOE occupational 

dose limit during 2010 at SLAC.

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility

The collective TED at Thomas Jefferson National 

Accelerator Facility increased approximately 350%, 

from 0.690 person-rem in 2009 to 3.111 person-rems in 

2010. This collective dose is attributed to maintenance, 

modification and repair of activated components 

associated with the Continuous Electron Beam 

Accelerator Facility as part of operating and upgrading 

these facilities, as well as ancillary activities such as 

transport, storage and disposal of radioactive materials. 

No individuals exceeded 2 rems (20 mSv) TED.

Uranium Mill Tailings Remediation Action Project – 

Moab

In April 2009, DOE began removing the 16 million tons of 

uranium mill tailings from the Moab site and relocating 

them by rail to the permanent disposal cell constructed 

at Crescent Junction. The employees’ 2010 radiological 

exposures occurred in the mill tailings excavation and 

conditioning, which took place directly on top of the 

mill tailing pile. The mill tailings were then placed in 

steel containers with locking lids for transportation to the 

disposal cell at Crescent Junction. In calendar year 2010, 

two train shipments were made daily Monday through 

Friday.

The Moab UMTRA Project accomplished the two 

shipments daily, with the assistance of funding from the 

ARRA. Approximately one-third of the 2010 radiological 
Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-17

Exhibit 3-16:

Program Office Dose Data, 2010.

Program Office

Collective 

TED 

(personrem)

Percent 

Change from 

2009

Number 

with 

Meas. 

Dose

Percent 

Change 

from 2009

Avg. 

Meas. 

TED 

(rem)

Percent 

Change 

from 2009

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 0.0 -24% ▼ 3 -40% ▼ 0.007 26% ▲

EE Totals* 0.0 -24% ▼ 3 -40% ▼ 0.007 26% ▲

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

East Tennessee Technology Park 1.2 43 0.028

Energy Technology Engineering Center 0.3 54 0.005

Hanford Site 112.5 21% ▲ 1,673 2% ▲ 0.067 18% ▲

Idaho National Laboratory 85.5 30% ▲ 1,114 -2% ▼ 0.077 32% ▲

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 38.1 95% ▲ 277 8% ▲ 0.138 81% ▲

Office of River Protection 28.5 38% ▲ 535 55% ▲ 0.053 -11% ▼

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant 1.3 16% ▲ 71 -10% ▼ 0.019 29% ▲

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant 3.0 92% ▲ 63 97% ▲ 0.047 -2% ▼

Savannah River Site 179.6 65% ▲ 2,587 19% ▲ 0.069 39% ▲

Separations Process Research Unit 7.9 74 0.106

Service Center Personnel 0.0 4 0.010

Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project 31.5 769% ▲ 237 158% ▲ 0.133 237% ▲

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 1.2 32% ▲ 62 -9% ▼ 0.019 45% ▲

West Valley Demonstration Project 41.9 13% ▲ 308 34% ▲ 0.136 -15% ▼

EM Totals* 532.4 50% ▲ 7.102 15% ▲ 0.075 30% ▲

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Kansas City Plant 0.0 -91% ▼ 10 0.005 -91% ▼

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 18.3 -30% ▼ 146 -20% ▼ 0.126 -12% ▼

Los Alamos National Laboratory 125.4 8% ▲ 1,335 -4% ▼ 0.094 13% ▲

Nevada National Security Site 3.0 -46% ▼ 73 -15% ▼ 0.041 -36% ▼

Pantex Plant 26.1 4% ▲ 303 0.086 4% ▲

Sandia National Laboratories 2.9 -30% ▼ 59 -33% ▼ 0.049 4% ▲

Service Center Personnel 0.3 11 0.026

Y-12 National Security Complex 69.4 13% ▲ 1,634 18% ▲ 0.042 -5% ▼

NNSA Totals* 245.5 3% ▲ 3,571 4% ▲ 0.069 -1% ▼

Office of Nuclear Energy (NE)

Idaho National Laboratory 44.5 -2% ▼ 775 15% ▲ 0.057 -15% ▼

NE Totals* 44.5 -2% ▼ 775 15% ▲ 0.057 -15% ▼

Office of Science (SC)

Ames Laboratory 0.9 26% ▲ 32 3% ▲ 0.028 23% ▲

Argonne National Laboratory 30.8 76% ▲ 173 28% ▲ 0.178 37% ▲

Brookhaven National Laboratory 11.5 122% ▲ 214 19% ▲ 0.054 87% ▲

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 11.2 -40% ▼ 169 -30% ▼ 0.066 -14% ▼

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 1.1 75% ▲ 16 14% ▲ 0.067 53% ▲

New Brunswick Laboratory

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education 0.1 -51% ▼ 56 -10% ▼ 0.002 -45% ▼

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 35.9 31% ▲ 462 15% ▲ 0.078 14% ▲

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 27.5 79% ▲ 280 16% ▲ 0.098 55% ▲

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory 0.7 -16% ▼ 79 -22% ▼ 0.008 8% ▲

Service Center Personnel 0.0 -92% ▼ 1 -80% ▼ 0.034 -58% ▼

SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory 0.1 -69% ▼ 4 -33% ▼ 0.013 -53% ▼

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility 3.1 351% ▲ 67 148% ▲ 0.046 82% ▲

SC Totals* 122.9 40% ▲ 1,553 7% ▲ 0.079 31% ▲

Note: Bold and boxed values indicate the greatest value in each column. The percentage change from the previous year is not shown because it is not 

meaningful when the site collective dose is less than 1 person-rem (10 person-mSv). Please see section 3.4.3.1 for more information.

* The collective TED totals are calculated from the dose records that are reported in millirem while the values shown are rounded to the nearest tenth 

of a rem.
3-18 DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

The primary sites contributing to the collective TED at 

EM are SRS, Hanford, and INL. For NNSA, the primary 

contributors are LLNL and Y-12. For the Office of 

Nuclear Energy, the primary contributor is INL. ORNL is 

the main contributor under the Office of Science. 

A more detailed breakdown of the exposure information 

by site, program office, and contractor is available at 

http://www.hss.doe.gov/SESA/Analysis/rems/ in the 

Appendices section of the Annual Report.

3.5 Transient Individuals

Transient individuals, or transients, are defined as 

individuals who are monitored at more than one 

DOE site during the calendar year. For the purpose 

of this report, a DOE site is defined as a geographic 

location. During the year, some individuals performed 

work at multiple sites and, therefore, had more than 

one monitoring record reported to the repository. In 

addition, some individuals transferred from one site 

to another. This section presents information on 

transient individuals to determine the extent to which 

individuals traveled from site to site and to examine the 

doses received by these individuals. Exhibit 3-17 shows 

the dose distribution and total number of transient 

individuals from 2006 to 2010. Over the past 5 years, the 

records of transient individuals have averaged 3% of the 

total records for all monitored individuals at DOE. These 

individuals received, on an average, 4% of the collective 

dose. The collective dose for transients increased by 

21% from 31.1 person-rems (311 person-mSv) in 2009 

to 37.7 person-rems (377 person-mSv) in 2010. The 

average measurable TED increased 23% from 0.052 rem 

(0.52 mSv) in 2009 to 0.064 rem (0.64 mSv) in 2010. 

These increases are consistent with the overall increases 

observed across the DOE complex from 2009 to 2010 

and represent an increase in work performed involving 

radiation exposure. Since 1993, the percentages have 

remained relatively constant, even though DOE has 

become extensively involved in D&D activities and other 

types of operations.

The tracking and analysis of transient workers is an 

important aspect of the HSS REMS project. While each 

site is responsible for monitoring individuals during their 

work at that site, the REMS project collects dose records 

from all sites and verifies that individuals do not exceed 

regulatory limits by accruing dose at multiple facilities. 

Although the number of transient individuals and 

average dose has been relatively low, the examination 

of these records remains an important function of HSS in 

ensuring worker health and safety.

3.6 Historical Data

3.6.1 Prior Years

In order to analyze recent radiation exposure data 

in the context of the history of radiation exposure at 

DOE, it is useful to include information prior to the 

past 5 years as presented in this report. For this reason, 

Exhibits 3-18 and 3-19 are presented to show a summary 

Exhibit 3-17:

Dose Distribution of Transient Workers, 2006–2010.

Dose Ranges (TED in rem) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Transients

Less than measurable 1,888 2,182 2,085 2,052 2,328

measurable <0.1 412 388 430 522 486

0.10–0.25 24 51 43 51 74

0.25–0.5 9 8 9 20 23

0.5–0.75 4 5

0.75–1.0 3 3 2

1.0–2.0 2 1

Total number of individuals monitored* 2,342 2,629 2,568 2,648 2,918

Number with measurable dose 454 447 483 596 590

% with measurable dose 19% 17% 19% 23% 20%

Collective TED (person-rem) 25.532 22.111 21.410 31.112 37.722

Average measurable TED (rem) 0.056 0.049 0.044 0.052 0.064

All DOE

Total number of records for monitored individuals 91,280 86,651 83,208 86,371 91,229

Number with measurable dose 12,953 11,102 11,287 11,721 13,004

% of total monitored who are transient 2.6% 3.0% 3.1% 3.1% 3.2%

% of the number with measurable dose who are transient 3.5% 4.0% 4.3% 5.1% 4.5%

* Total number of individuals represents the number of individuals monitored and not the number of records.
Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-19

Exhibit 3-19:

Number of Workers with Measurable Dose and Average Measurable Dose, 1974–2010.

Exhibit 3-18:

Collective Dose and Average Measurable Dose, 1974–2010.

* 1974--1989 collective dose = DDE

1990--1992 collective dose = DDE + AEDE

1993--2010 collective dose = DDE + CEDE

2010 collective dose = ED + CED

1946--1974 Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)

1974--1977 Energy Research and Development Administration 

(ERDA)

1977--Present Department of Energy (DOE)
3-20 DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

of occupational exposures back to 1974, when the 

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) split into the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Energy 

Research and Development Administration (ERDA), 

which subsequently became DOE. Exhibits 3-18 and 

3-19 show the collective dose, average measurable dose, 

and number of workers with a measurable dose from 

1974 to 2010. As can be seen from the graphs, all three 

parameters decreased dramatically between 1986 and 

1993. The main reasons for this large decrease were 

the shutdown of facilities within the weapons complex 

and the end of the Cold War era, which shifted the 

DOE mission from weapons production to shutdown, 

stabilization, and D&D activities.

3.6.2 Historical Data Collection

In section 3.7 of the 2000 and 2001 annual reports on 

occupational exposure, information was presented on 

historical data that had been collected to date. Sites 

were requested by DOE to voluntarily provide historical 

exposure data, and many sites have subsequently 

responded. No additional sites have reported historical 

data during the year 2010. 

Sites that have not yet reported historical dose records 

are encouraged to contact Ms. Nirmala Rao at DOE 

(see section 1.2) to obtain further information on 

reporting these records. This is a request to voluntarily 

report historical data (records prior to 1987) that are 

available in electronic form or in whatever format that 

is most convenient for the site. The data will be stored 

as reported in REMS, and wherever possible, data will 

be extracted and loaded into the REMS database for 

analysis and retrieval. For detailed analysis, read section 

3.7 of the 2000 report.

Sites that have voluntarily reported historical data are as 

follows:

	 u Fernald Environmental Management Project;

	 u Hanford;

	 u Idaho National Laboratory;

	 u Kansas City Plant;

	 u Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory;

	 u Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;

	 u Nevada National Security Site;

	 u Oak Ridge K-25 Site;

	 u Pantex Plant;

	 u Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant;

	 u Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site;

	 u Sandia National Laboratories; and

	 u Savannah River Site.

3.7 DOE Occupational Dose in Relation to 

Other Activities

3.7.1 Activities Regulated by the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission

In the DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 

1992-1994, DOE occupational radiation exposure was 

shown in relation to other industrial and governmental 

endeavors in order to gain an understanding of 

the relative scale of the radiation exposure at DOE 

operations to other activities. The 2010 report includes 

the DOE occupational exposure in relation to activities 

regulated by the NRC. It should be noted that the 

purpose of this information is simply to put the DOE 

radiation exposure in context with other endeavors that 

involve radiation exposure. A direct comparison is not 

appropriate due to the differences in the missions of 

DOE and NRC. While the mission of DOE is broad in 

scope and includes activities from energy research to 

national defense, NRC licensed activities are dominated 

by radiation exposure received at commercial 

nuclear power plants. Reactor operations account 

for approximately 91% of the collective dose, while 

industrial radiographers, manufacturers, and distributors 

of radiopharmaceuticals, independent spent fuel storage 

installations, and fuel cycle licensees comprise the 

remainder.

The DOE and NRC occupational exposure data shown 

in Exhibit 3-20 cover the past 5 years (2006 to 2010). 

While the number of workers monitored at NRC and 

DOE are relatively comparable over the past 5 years, 

the number of individuals with a measurable dose at 

DOE was 21% of the NRC total for this time period. The 

percentages of DOE’s collective dose (TED) and average 

measurable dose (TED) were 9% and 43% of the NRC 

totals, respectively.
Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-21

Exhibit 3-20:

Comparison of Occupational Exposure for DOE and NRC, 2006 –2010 .

Number of Individuals Number of Individuals

Monitored with Measurable Dose

Collective TED Average Measurable TED

(person-rem) (rem)

DOE

NRC
3-22 DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

This page intentionally left blank.
ALARA Activities at DOE 4-1

Section Four ALARA Activities at DOE 4

Descriptions of ALARA activities at DOE are provided 

ALARA Activities at DOE

on the HSS web site for the purposes of sharing 

strategies and techniques that have shown promise in 

the reduction of radiation exposure and to facilitate 

the dissemination among DOE radiation protection 

managers and others interested in these project 

descriptions. Readers should be aware that the project 

descriptions are voluntarily submitted from the sites 

and are not independently verified or endorsed by 

DOE. Program and site offices and contractors who are 

interested in benchmarks of success and continuous 

improvement in the context of integrated safety 

management and quality are encouraged to provide 

input. 

4.1 Submitting ALARA Project 

Descriptions for Future Annual Reports

Individual project descriptions may be submitted to 

the DOE Office of Analysis through the REMS web site. 

The submittals should describe the process in sufficient 

detail to provide a basic understanding of the project, 

the radiological concerns, and the activities initiated to 

reduce dose. The web site provides a form to collect the 

following information about the project:

	 u Mission statement;

	 u Project description;

	 u Radiological concerns;

	 u Total collective dose for the project;

	 u Dose rate to exposed workers before and after 

exposure controls were implemented;

	 u Information on how the process implemented 

ALARA techniques in an innovative or unique 

manner;

	 u Estimated dose avoided;

	 u Project staff involved;

	 u Approximate cost of the ALARA effort;

	 u Impact on work processes, in person-hours if 

possible (may be negative or positive);

	 u Figures and/or photos of the project or 

equipment (electronic images if available); and

	 u Point of contact for follow-up by interested 

professionals.

The REMS web page for submitting ALARA project 

descriptions can be accessed on the Internet at:

4.2 Operating Experience Program

DOE has a mature operating experience program, 

which has been enhanced from the lessons learned 

program that was initially developed in 1994. 

The current DOE operating experience program 

is described in DOE O 210.2A, DOE Corporate 

Operating Experience Program [12]. The objective is 

to institute a DOE-wide program for the management 

of operating experience to prevent adverse operating 

incidents and to expand the sharing of good 

work practices among DOE sites. The purpose 

is to provide a systematic review, identification, 

collection, screening, evaluation, and dissemination 

of operating experience from U.S. and foreign 

government agencies and industry, professional 

societies, trade associations, national academies, 

universities, and DOE and its contractors. The 

Headquarters corporate responsibility for identifying, 

analyzing, and sharing operating experience 

information, combined with the operating 

experience/lessons learned provided by DOE field 

sites, optimizes the knowledge gained and shared 

with others through various products, including a 

corporate database.

DOE posts operating experience information and 

links to other operating experience resources on the 

Internet. DOE uses the Internet to openly disseminate 

such information so that not only DOE but also other 

external entities will have a source of information to 

improve the health and safety aspects of operations 

within their facilities, including reducing the number 

of accidents and injuries.

http://www.hss.doe.gov/SESA/Analysis/rems/

rems/ALARA.cfm
4-2 DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

The specific operating experience web site address 

may be subject to change. Information services can be 

accessed through the HSS web site as follows: http://www.hss.doe.gov/SESA/Analysis/II/

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20585-1290

E-mail: nimi.rao@hq.doe.gov
Conclusions 5-1

u In 2010, one individual was reported to have received a TED in excess of 5 rems (50 mSv). The final dose was 

determined to be 31.589 rems CED from an intake of plutonium at SRS. The individual also exceeded the 50 

rems CEqD limit for an organ or tissue. 

u The collective TED increased 30% from 726 person-rems (7.26 person-Sv) in 2009 to 945 person-rems (9.45 

person-Sv) in 2010.

u Sites contributing significantly to collective dose were (in descending order of collective dose) Savannah 

River, Hanford, Oak Ridge, Idaho, and Los Alamos. These sites accounted for 79% of the collective dose at 

DOE in 2010.

u At these sites, the increase in collective TED was attributed to: increased D&D activities at PFP and increased 

retrieval and processing TRU waste at Hanford, waste processing including higher dose waste drums and 

decommissioning at Savannah River Site, isotope processing and cleanup and waste disposal at Oak Ridge, 

increased decommissioning and decontamination at Idaho, increased manufacturing and related weapons 

work, processing and shipping solid waste, and maintenance activities at LANL.

u Sites attributed much of the increase in collective dose to increases in funding for cleanup and environmental 

efforts under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009.

u The collective internal dose (CED) increased by 86% between 2009 and 2010.

u Uranium-234 accounted for the largest percentage of the collective CED, with over 99% of this dose accrued at 

 Y-12.

u The collective dose for transient workers increased by 21% from 31.1 person-rems (311 person-mSv) in 2009 to 

37.7 person-rems (377 person-mSv) in 2010, but did not exceed the highest value within the past 5 years.

u The total number of bioassay measurements decreased by 12% from 81,532 in 2009 to 71,924 in 2010.

Section Five Conclusions 5

Conclusions

The occupational radiation exposure records show 

that in 2010, DOE facilities continued to comply with 

DOE dose limits and ACLs and worked to minimize 

exposure to individuals. Only 14% of the monitored 

workers received a measurable dose and the average 

measurable dose was less than 2% of the DOE limit. In 

2010, the collective dose and the number of individuals 

with measurable dose increased by 30% and 11%, 

respectively. These increases in the dose and number 

of individuals were the result of increased activities 

involving radioactive materials, particularly at the DOE 

sites that comprise the majority of DOE collective dose. 

See Exhibit 5-1 below for summary data.

Over the past 10 years, the collective dose and the size 

of the monitored workforce have remained at fairly 

stable levels. For the past 3 years, there has been an 

increase in collective dose and the number of individuals 

with measurable dose as activities have increased in 

decommissioning and waste processing at 

several of the larger DOE sites. 

The collective dose at DOE facilities has 

experienced a dramatic (89%) decrease 

since 1986. This decrease coincides with 

the end of the Cold War era, which shifted 

the DOE mission from weapons production 

to stabilization, waste management, and 

environmental remediation activities along 

with the consolidation and remediation of 

facilities across the complex to meet the new 

mission. It is notable, that as DOE has become 

more involved in the new mission, collective 

and average doses have been relatively low. 

Also during this time period, regulations have 

improved with an increased focus on ALARA 

practices and risk reduction.

Exhibit 5-1:

2010 Radiation Exposure Summary.
5-2 DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

This page intentionally left blank.
Glossary G-1

Glossary

administrative control level (ACL)

Glossary

A dose level that is established below the DOE dose limit in order to administratively control exposures. 

ACLs are multi-tiered, with increasing levels of authority required to approve a higher level of exposure.

ALARA

Acronym for “as low as reasonably achievable,” which is the approach to radiation protection to manage 

and control exposures (both individual and collective) to the workforce and the general public to as low as 

is reasonable, taking into account social, technical, economic, practical, and public policy considerations. 

ALARA is not a dose limit but a process with the objective of attaining doses as far below the applicable limits 

as is reasonably achievable.

ARRA

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is an economic stimulus package signed into law on 

February 27, 2009.

average measurable dose

Dose obtained by dividing the collective dose by the number of individuals who received a measurable dose. 

This is the average most commonly used in this and other reports when examining trends and comparing 

doses received by workers, because it reflects the exclusion of those individuals receiving a less than 

measurable dose. Average measurable dose is calculated for TED, ED, neutron dose, extremity dose, and 

other types of dose.

collective dose

The sum of the total annual effective dose equivalent or total effective dose values for all individuals in a 

specified population. Collective dose is expressed in units of person-rem.

committed effective dose (CED) (HE,50)

The sum of the committed equivalent doses to various tissues or organs in the body (HT,50), each multiplied 

by the appropriate weighting factor (wT) (i.e., HE,50 = wTHT,50). CED is expressed in units of rem.

committed equivalent dose (CEqD) (HT,50)

The equivalent dose calculated to be received by a tissue or organ over a 50-year period after the intake of 

a radionuclide into the body. It does not include contributions from radiation sources external to the body. 

CEqD is expressed in units of rem.

CR

See SR.

effective dose (ED) 

The summation of the products of the equivalent dose received by specified tissues or organs of the body 

(HT) and the appropriate tissue weighting factor (wT)—that is, E = ΣwTHT. It includes the dose from radiation 

sources internal and/or external to the body.

Equivalent dose (EqD) 

The product of average absorbed dose (DT,R) in rad (or gray) in a tissue or organ (T) and a radiation (R) 

weighting factor (wR). For external dose, the: equivalent dose to the whole body is assessed at a depth of 

1 cm in tissue; the equivalent dose to the lens of the eye is assessed at a depth of 0.3 cm in tissue, and

the equivalent dose to the extremity and skin is assessed at a depth of 0.007 cm in tissue. The mathematical 

term is HT, while the abbreviation EqD is used in this report and in the REMS reporting requirements for this 

data element. Equivalent dose is expressed in units of rem (or Sv).

Glossary
G-2 DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

DOE site

A geographic location operated under the authority of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

exposure

As used in this report, exposure refers to individuals subjected to, or in the presence of, radioactive materials that may 

or may not result in occupational radiation dose.

Hanford

This term is used to describe the entire reservation and all activities at this geographic location. It includes all cleanup 

activities at the reactors at the “Hanford Site,” Office of River Protection, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 

This term is used when we are including Hanford Site, Office of River Protection, and Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory.

Hanford Site

All activities at, and clean up of, the reactors and 100 – 400 areas at the reservation. Does not include Office of 

River Protection and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

Office of River Protection

Tank farm and liquid waste cleanup to protect the Columbia River.

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

The national laboratory involved in a broad range of scientific research.

members of the public

Individuals who are not occupationally exposed to radiation or radioactive material. 

number of individuals with measurable dose

The subset of all monitored individuals who receive a measurable dose (greater than the limit of detection for the 

monitoring system). Many personnel are monitored as a matter of prudence and may not receive a measurable 

dose. For this reason, the number of individuals with measurable dose is presented in this report as a more accurate 

indicator of the exposed workforce. The number of individuals represents the number of dose records reported. Some 

individuals may be counted more than once if multiple dose records are reported for the individual during the year.

occupational dose

An individual’s ionizing radiation dose (external and internal) as a result of that individual’s work assignment. 

Occupational dose does not include doses received as a medical patient or doses resulting from background radiation 

or participation as a subject in medical research programs.

SR (formerly CR)

SR is defined by United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) as the ratio of the 

annual collective dose delivered at individual doses exceeding a specified dose value to the collective dose. UNSCEAR 

uses a subscript to denote the dose value (in mSv) used in the calculation of the ratio. Therefore, SR15 would be 

the ratio of the annual collective dose delivered at individual doses exceeding 1.5 rems (15 mSv) to the total annual 

collective dose.

total effective dose (TED)

The sum of the effective dose (ED) from external sources and the committed effective dose (CED) from intakes of 

radionuclides during the monitoring period.The internal dose component of TED changed from the annual effective 

dose equivalent (AEDE) to the CEDE in 1993 and from CEDE to CED in 2007.
Glossary G-3

total number of records for monitored individuals

All individuals who are monitored and reported to the DOE Headquarters database system. This includes DOE 

employees, contractors, subcontractors, and members of the public monitored during a visit to a DOE site. The number 

of individuals represents the number of dose records reported. Some individuals may be counted more than once if 

multiple dose records are reported for the individual during the year.

total organ dose (TOD)

The sum of the effective dose to the whole body for external exposures and the committed equivalent dose to the 

maximally exposed organ or tissue other than the skin or the lens of the eye. 

transient individual

An individual who is monitored at more than one DOE site during the calendar year.

urinalysis

The technique of determining the radiation dose received by an individual from an intake by the measurement of the 

amount of radioactive material in the urine excreted from the body.
G-4 DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

This page intentionally left blank.
References R-1

References

References

References

1. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1987. “Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal 

Agencies for Occupational Exposure,” Federal Register 52, No. 17, 2822; with corrections published in 

the Federal Registers of Friday, January 30, and Wednesday, February 4, 1987.

2. ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1977. “Recommendations of the 

International Commission on Radiological Protection,” ICRP Publication 26, Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 1, 

No. 3 (Pergamon Press, New York).

3. NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements), 1987. “Recommendations on 

Limits for Exposure to Ionizing Radiation,” NCRP 91; superseded by NCRP Report No. 116.

4. ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1991. “1990 Recommendations of the 

International Commission on Radiological Protection,” ICRP Publication 60, Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 21, 

Nos. 1-3 (Pergamon Press, New York).

5. ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1994. “Dose Coefficients for Intakes of 

Radionuclides by Workers,” ICRP Publication 68, Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Pergamon Press, 

New York).

6. 10 C.F.R. 835, 1998, “Occupational Radiation Protection.” Amended June 8, 2007. Rule; DOE Federal 

Register, November 4, 1998. Amended June 8, 2007.

7. DOE O 231.1A, 2003, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting,” August 19, 2003.

8. DOE M 231.1-1A, 2004, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting Manual,” March 19, 2004.

9. Computerized Accident and Incident Reporting System (CAIRS), “DOE and Contractor Injury and Illness 

Data by Year by Quarter” report. Online at http://www.hss.doe.gov/sesa/analysis/cairs/cairs/home.htm.

10. United Nations, 2000, Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, United Nations Scientific Committee on 

the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes, 

Volume I, General Assembly of Official Records, United Nations, New York, 2000.

11. DOE Standard, DOE-STD-1098-99, “Radiological Control,” July 1999

12. DOE O 210.2A, “DOE Corporate Operating Experience Program,” April 8, 2011
R-2 DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

This page intentionally left blank.
User Survey U-1

User Survey

DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

User Survey

User Survey

DOE, striving to meet the needs of its stakeholders, is looking for suggestions on ways to improve the DOE 

2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report. Your feedback is important. Constructive feedback will 

ensure the report can continue to meet user needs. Please fill out the attached survey form and return it to:

Ms. Nirmala Rao Questions concerning this survey should

DOE Office of Analysis (HS-24) be directed to Ms. Rao at (301) 903-2297.

Office of Health, Safety and Security

19901 Germantown Road

Germantown, MD 20874

nimi.rao@hq.doe.gov

Fax: (301) 903-1257

1. Identification:

 Name:......................................................................................................................................................

 Title:.........................................................................................................................................................

 Mailing Address: ....................................................................................................................................

 .........................................................................................................................................................

 .........................................................................................................................................................

 .........................................................................................................................................................

2. Distribution:

 2.1 Do you wish to remain on the distribution for the report? _____ yes _____ no

 2.2 Do you wish to be added to the distribution? _____ yes _____ no

(continued on back)
U-2 DOE 2010 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report

Please circle one.

 Not Useful Very Useful

Please rate the usefulness of this report overall: 1 2 3 4 5 

Please rate the usefulness of the analysis presented in the following sections:

Executive Summary 1 2 3 4 5 

Analysis of Aggregate Data 1 2 3 4 5 

 Collective Dose 1 2 3 4 5 

 Average Measurable Dose 1 2 3 4 5 

 Dose Distribution 1 2 3 4 5 

Analysis of Individual Dose Data 1 2 3 4 5 

 Doses above 2 rems ACL 1 2 3 4 5 

 Doses in Excess of 5 rems 1 2 3 4 5 

 Internal Depositions of Radioactive Material 1 2 3 4 5 

Analysis of Site Data 1 2 3 4 5 

 Collective Dose by Site 1 2 3 4 5 

 Description of Activities Related to Dose 1 2 3 4 5 

Historical Data 1 2 3 4 5 

ALARA Activities at DOE 1 2 3 4 5 

Conclusions 1 2 3 4 5 

Please rate the importance of the timeliness of the publication of this report as it relates to your professional need for 

the information on occupational radiation exposure at DOE:

 Not important Critical

 1 2 3 4 5 

Please provide any additional input or comments on the report. 

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

Prepared for the Office of Health, Safety and Security

by Oak Ridge Associated Universities

P.O. Box 117 • Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0117